October 27, 2011

The ad uses video from Cain's interview with Piers Morgan, which I've blogged about here, and also this interview with John Stossel. A friend sent me that Stossel interview a couple days ago along with the comment that Cain is an idiot, and my response was:

I don't think he's being idiotic, actually. His position is much like Obama's position on marijuana. Keep it illegal, but don't enforce the law. Let people do what they want, but knowing that the community as a whole has stigmatized it as criminal.

I don't like that use of law, but it's not incomprehensible. Cain states and restates the position clearly. It's just a decision to put the expression of disapproval in the criminal law and then do nothing about the violation.

Same thing as with marijuana possession (in small amounts or whatever the hell the policy is).

It seems to me that Herman Cain would like to take us back to the good/bad old days when abortion was not a right, there were criminal laws, but women got illegal abortions. In Herman Cain's dream scenario, abortions would be available, but no one would be prosecuted. What's the point? The point is, women would know they were doing something criminal, and maybe that would affect their choice, and the people as a polity would be able to express themselves through the criminal law saying that abortion is murder.

Cain's position on abortion, as interpreted by Althouse...

does a good job of valuing both unborn life and a woman's control over her own body.

basically preserves access to abortion, with some bad use of criminal law as a smokescreen.

is basically anti-abortion, leavened with a bit of leniency to account for rape and incest.

Making an act a criminal act but not enforcing the law is frankly beyond idiotic simply because if a law is on the books then it will at some time or point be enforced.

If society wants to frown on something then let it do so, but not encoded in the law. The law is already too much of a jackass to suffer going to through those motions. Besides the President is required by the Constitution to enforce all laws. You don't get to pick and choose.

I like a lot about Herman Cain. But there is also some to be wary of. A better way to state things is to simply state what is reality.

I believe it is immoral, but it is not illegal. If the people wish to make it illegal then they will do so through their elected representatives.

Well Santorum himself said that he wouldn't arrest women for having abortions, so he is being full of shit, as usual. The day he announces his pathetic driveling little campaign is over will be a very happy one.

Santorum had a deal with the people in PA - as long as he voted the right way on abortion, he could spend anything he wanted. Abortion is the only signature issue he has and he really doesn't get any bang for the buck.

As I've said, the lightest of weights.

OTOH, Krauthammer is right when he says Herman is winging it on many issues and this one's getting ready to bite him.

Marijuana laws as they are now I think inspire contempt of the law, and a willingness to disregard the law when it suits you. Where does that lead? On the other hand, there are **so many things** besides marijuana that inspire contempt of the law, and government in general, so what difference does it make. Having some contempt (or maybe some milder, similar feeling) for your govt is a healthy thing some would say.

But insofar as abortion is concerned, wouldn't it be better (and more suitable) for opponents to focus their efforts on trying to convince people that abortion is murder, on par with murdering a born child, rather than using some passive-aggressive manipulation of the law to compel a result they cannot, or have not yet, achieved otherwise?

For instance, in Roe v. Wade Blackmun cites Plato and Aristotle for the viability doctrine. But of course those two philosophers were advocates of abandoning babies to die. The newborn is not viable, not "autonomous" in the Greek sense, because they could not feed or take care of themselves. The ancient Greeks also mandated that babies born with handicaps were to be murdered.

Needless to say, Plato and Aristotle did not have neonatal care units. And of course they were big on killing newborns because a) there was no birth control and b) abortions usually killed mom as well.

Bragging about the historical support for abortion is kind of like talking up slavery.

One might also point out that Judeo-Christianity always tried to determine "when life begins" in order to avoid infanticide. Thus if we found that life begins at quickening, we would allow abortions until quickening. If life begins at conception, we would not allow abortions.

Roe v. Wade classified a baby in the womb as a non-person, which is to say a commodity. Thus, "we need resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

The States can outlaw abortion the day the SCOTUS says so, and not until then.

The President can never affect it in any way except perhaps a nominee to the Court could help or hurt some ,if confirmed, and then 5 votes could maybe repeal Roe.

Congress could 2/3 an amendment that the States 3/4 and then SCOTUS would stand out of the way.

Santorum is a third class show off who deals in condemnation for women. Not that that has not always been an easy sell in some circles.

The affect of the Santorum's Prohibition of thoughts not approved by himself and Bachmann may be to peal off Iowa caucus votes from Cain and swing the nomination towards Romney...is that what those two creeps really want?

Herman is right that many stupid people are making our decisions, but if enough smart ones vote they will lose.

I chose option 3. I have no issues with a woman choosing to seek an abortion in the case of incest or rape. I hope she does not, but I would never hold that against her in such a circumstance, I'd even go as far to say for medical conditions as well. Do I want abortion made illegal? Not necessarily, but I certainly do not want it to be made a criminal act and I can still hold my head up high and say that I am anti-abortion. My view is that in line with Cain and I understand it fully. He is giving a fairly nuanced approach to a heavy topic and yet people out there are giving him little credit for it. The staunch anti-abortionists under any circumstance have my sympathy and empathy, but they really need to understand his position before calling him an idiot. Santorum would do well to stay away from this, but he can't help himself because of the anti-abortion stance he has historically taken.

When the state imposes so many laws that everyone needs to violate them in order to survive, it has laid the basie for totalitarianism because state actors will have the discretion to prosecute who they want, and everyone will actually be guilty.

Every time one allows a law to be enacted,not because one thinks it should be enforced, but just to send a message, one incrementally adds to the discretionary power of the state to control individuals.

Moreover, such a program brings with it tolerance of illegal behavior sometimes, but not all the time. For example, when we expect that farmers, restaurant owners and conctractors will look the other way when hiring illegal immigrants, but then refuse to confirm anyone who has done so for public office, we do them and our contry a grievous wrong. No one should be expected to break the law in order to run a competitive business. (And are we as forgiving when they look the other way in disposing of asbestos or hazardous waste?)

If you think abortion is immoral, but should be allowed, have the intellectual honesty to say that it falls in the area of activity in which morality should not be legislated.

"Life begins at conception" is not particularly helpful, by the way, because a woman is not truly pregnant unless the zygote impregnates itself into the uteran wall. IUD keeps that from happening, so for some pro-lifers IUD is an abortion. For me it's birth control.

It takes 7-10 days for a zygote to impregnate itself into the uteran wall (or fail, which many of them do). That means a rape victim has a week to go to a hospital and get cleaned up. To me that is an ordinary and decent act, akin to using birth control. I have absolutely no problem with it.

You couldn't prosecute any doctor for an abortion in that scenario because you couldn't prove there was a pregnancy in the first place. We don't know when conception happens, or if it does, unless the zygote attaches and develops into an embryo.

The Texas lawyers in Roe v. Wade argued that life begins at implantation. Thus the Supreme Court could have held (should have held) that under Texas law a rape victim has a week to abort her pregnancy. This would help actual rape victims. And it would keep other women from lying about rape (which is what Jane Roe was doing) in order to manipulate us. It's rather disgusting when people use rape victims for political advantage.

I feel like the rape question--and both interviewers asked Cain about rape--is a real distraction from the overwhelming majority of abortions. In particular it distracts us from the most homicidal abortions, the D&E and the D&X, the Carhart abortions, the Kermit murder case, etc.

The problem is with Democrats claiming that if abortion is legal, then it must also be a "right" and should be provided free of charge to all comers by all medical facilities, including those operated by the Sisters of the Third Order of St Francis, under penalty of "law."

And let me add: The video looks terrible as well. Is that supposed to be amniotic fluid in the background as the quotes are thrown on the screen for us to read and the female narrator earnestly reads her script?

If you have a lousy background for your video, here's a hint: The video is too long.

Uh, Obama is enforcing the law--his feds are on a vendetta right now to shut down medical marijuana in California.

Most Obama voters stop at "what I think Obama will do", a few travel further to "what Obama actually promised", but only the rare oddball finally arrives at "what Obama's administration is actually doing".

No, most likely he's talking about belladonna and other things like pills in the 19th century that were advertised to "unclog the menses."

In history, if a woman married at age 16, what are the chances she only had 5-6 pregnancies naturally, if her husband is fertile? There's a reason it wasn't unusual for 18th century colonial women to bear 11-15 children.

American native-born white women, 19th century, had an average of 5-6 children by the 1850s (down from about 8-9 50 years prior). The birth rate continued to drop until about the 1940s & 1950s, where there is a small, temporary rise in the birth rates.

Thus the Supreme Court could have held (should have held) that under Texas law a rape victim has a week to abort her pregnancy. This would help actual rape victims.

But as you state, a woman won't know if she's pregnant. (Certainly when Roe v. Wade was determined, the tests to determine whether or not you were pregnant weren't accurate at all before implantation or even shortly thereafter) I agree it could help actual rape victims -- compassionate medicos and all that -- but to require a rape victim to get an abortion for a possible pregnancy after a rape? Pass.

A zygote can split, forming twins. So it's kind of bizarre to argue that "life begins at conception." Where did that other life come from?

The Supreme Court in Roe said that if we applied equal protection analysis to abortion, all abortions would be illegal.

That's nonsense, actually. All equal protection requires is the same rule of law, applied equally. Thus a state could not allow abortion if it would be a homicide under state classifications of human death. For instance, all 50 states define death as "total brain death." So the key issue then is when do the unborn have activity in the brain? (About 9 weeks after the last menstrual period).

You apply those statutes to the issue so that we are not killing anybody under state law.

Thus the critical question is not "when does life begin" but rather "when do people die?" A bit of focus on the homicide issue would have kept the Supreme Court out of most of this imbroglio.

"Do I want abortion made illegal? Not necessarily, but I certainly do not want it to be made a criminal act and I can still hold my head up high and say that I am anti-abortion."

I don't get this. Under the law, you get two choices:

(1) Criminal(2) Civil

Are you arguing that you want to make abortion a tort?

(I don't think anti-abortion people are arguing for civil penalties. But could be an interesting argument, if that's what you are saying. But you can't sort-of-make something criminal. It's either a crime against the the people and the state or it's not.)

Lucien said... When the state imposes so many laws that everyone needs to violate them in order to survive, it has laid the basie for totalitarianism because state actors will have the discretion to prosecute who they want, and everyone will actually be guilty.

Well put.

This reminds me of don't ask don't tell, or people who say it's ok to fudge your taxes because everyone does it.

The law should state what is and is not admissible, criminal, etc. It should not be a wink and a nod.

A terrible solution. Either have an enforceable law or don't, but having the law and only selectively enforcing it intentionally contributes to already rapidly-fading trust in the legal system.

I wandered into Ken Burns Prohibition series a few weeks ago, and found it very balanced on causes and consequences. Episode 2 is "A Nation of Scofflaws" and Episode 3 is "A Nation of Hypocrites". Let's not repeat that credibility-diluting effort with abortion.

I don't know much about belladonna. Is that a poison you would swallow? The idea being that it would cause miscarriage? I think that's a pretty dubious theory, but please tell me more. Safe and effective, was it?

But as you state, a woman won't know if she's pregnant. (Certainly when Roe v. Wade was determined, the tests to determine whether or not you were pregnant weren't accurate at all before implantation or even shortly thereafter) I agree it could help actual rape victims -- compassionate medicos and all that -- but to require a rape victim to get an abortion for a possible pregnancy after a rape? Pass.

Well, I think a rape victim should go to a hospital, see a doctor, check for v.d., get cleaned up, talk to the police, etc. She can have emergency contraception, which is simply swallowing a pill.

I'm not requiring her to do any of this. It's a good idea if you want to avoid a pregnancy. And if you don't do it, you're running the risk of getting pregnant.

What I think the law ought to do is distinguish actual rape victims from people who make false claims of rape. If you allow a right to abortion for the nine months of the pregnancy for rape, you will have lots of people making false claims of rape.

Justice Ginsburg speaks of rape victims in Carhart, which is the partial-birth abortion case. To my mind that is a political (and disgusting) use of rape victims to advance an ideology. It's similar to Catherine Mackinnon using rape victims to try to outlaw porn.

There are rape victims, and we ought to think about ways to help them. But we also ought to distinguish between real victims and the ideological hoax.

"Life begins at conception" is not particularly helpful, by the way, because a woman is not truly pregnant unless the zygote impregnates itself into the uteran wall. IUD keeps that from happening, so for some pro-lifers IUD is an abortion. For me it's birth control.

It may not be helpful, but it doesn't make untrue. The spark of life begins right at the point of conception. This is a fact. What happens after that is irrelevant. To say otherwise dismisses the truth.

(I don't think anti-abortion people are arguing for civil penalties. But could be an interesting argument, if that's what you are saying. But you can't sort-of-make something criminal. It's either a crime against the the people and the state or it's not.)

What is the difficulty in understanding here. Abortion as it stands right now is legal in all cases. To my knowledge it has never undergone a civil penalties test. In the specific instance I brought up, I have no issues with its use. Under those circumstances abortion shouldn't be illegal. Under any other circumstance it should be.

There was a column by George Will way back (late 70s, I think) about a case in Florida where an elderly man shot his wife. She was terminally ill, in hideous pain, and could only gasp out a few repeated words that made it clear that she desperately wanted to die.

Will wrote that what the man did was right, but that it must remain illegal. There are some actions that have to be so marked that you would willingly carry them out even knowing that you were forfeiting your own life in the act. That seems right to me: Don't kill another human being for anything you wouldn't be willing to die for.

Santorum is totally washed up politically, and in dire need of some employment prospects. This Presidential run won't net him any, while Cain and Newt will clean up on the book and rubber chicken lecture circuit. Herman might even get a Cabinet post or a TV show.

Not Santorum. No media interest in him and his self-righteous act on social issues, and he is divisive enough that he would be hard to place in a Republican Administration.

I tend to agree with St Croix's opinion. While a zygote begins at conception, a pregnancy starts at implantation. Hardcore pro-lifer cant about life beginning at conception and the argument that each life is entitled to full adult legal rights, is a hard one to make. Because up to 40% of fertilized zygotes pass out of a womans body without notice or consequence. Some split into identical twins that have no "half life". And if you think God is behind it and just soewhat sloppy with the "precious sanctity" of his zygotes, wasting so many - pro-lifers also have to account for each higher placental animal having a built-in abortion clinic. The genetically unfit implants are detected a good part of the time and aborted. Freeing the womb and the limited fertile span of such animals to put a healthier fetus in place. The same internal abortion clinic also works in certain circumstances to abort when the animals health is under stress, sacrificing one batch of offspring in favor of preserving the animal for future pregnacies.(Lower order animals is where "God" is even sloppier. Multiple offspring, most consigned to die without a qualm by the baby's mom and dad. Runts, stillborns, genetic defectives, and even some healthy ones eaten by Mom&Dad, even some siblings.)

The spark of life begins right at the point of conception. This is a fact. What happens after that is irrelevant. To say otherwise dismisses the truth.

Doesn't make it a homicide, though. Conception means your body is coming into being. But your body's existence isn't the sole criteria for life. Under death statutes in all 50 states, you have to have brain activity. This means you have to have brain activity to be alive under the law.

At the end of your life, when you die, your body is still there. It is decomposing. But it would be ridiculous to say we can't recognize death. Of course we can. You have to have more than a corporeal form to be alive.

Judeo-Christianity has usually relied upon an ensoulment theory, which makes sense as we view death as a soul leaving the body. Thus the key issue is not when the body starts to grow, but when the soul enters the body. Obviously we can't see that. But we do have criteria for human death, and if we apply that same criteria to human life, the answer is brain activity.

And I think pre-life is very important, miraculous even. I just wouldn't characterize the termination of a microscopic organism as a homicide. It's certainly does not qualify under the legal definitions of death we use for all human beings in our society.

It boggles my mind that someone would give his campaign money. A fool and his money are soon parted. Of course, I say that as someone who has given money ($20) to a campaign exactly once, and that was to a neighbor.

Although I agree completely with Republicans about spending, taxes, and the economy, I cannot vote for them because the party contains too many narrow-minded bigots like Santorum. This ad will deprive the country of a president who could save it.

In history, if a woman married at age 16, what are the chances she only had 5-6 pregnancies naturally, if her husband is fertile? There's a reason it wasn't unusual for 18th century colonial women to bear 11-15 children.My grandmother had 11 children between 1909 and 1933.

Are they pushing through legislation to get Americans back to work? No. Are they fighting to improve our education system? Nope. Perhaps they're too busy repairing America's roads and bridges, making vital investments in infrastructure? Wrong again.

Email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz;

"Guess what the House Republicans are focused on.

They're using their majority in Congress to wage a war on women's health and freedom.

Last week, they passed the Protect Life Act, which is curiously named since it does precisely the opposite. This bill would override core patient protections and allow hospitals to legally deny life-saving treatment to women"......

Revenant said;"Could we pretty please, with sugar on top, focus on economic issues? While we're still a first-world nation?"

Boehner pretty much said that he was going to fulfill a promise to the Tea Party with all this socially oriented legislating. To hell with the economy they say, the worse it gets the, worse Obama looks, the better they like it. They sacrifice the economy of this country to make sure they get their man in the Presidency in 2012. THEN they will pretty much tell all those religious rights folks to go take a flying leap, just like Bush did after he got elected.

The abortion issue has only one real solution - federalism. Return it to the states and California, NY and Massachusetts can be the abortion destination for everybody. Sort of like Reno used to be for divorce. Thos who think abortion is the most important issue can move to the abortion states and those who believe in life can move to pro-life states like Utah and Texas. The idea that the Constitution addresses, much less requires abortion is absurd on its face.

You're assuming that a 5-4 Court won't go 5-4 the other way, which is a silly assumption to make. Ginsburg is 78. And the abortion cases are getting uglier. The two Carhart cases, and now the murder prosecution on an abortionist. Plus the murder of Dr. Tiller.

If Obama is out in 2012, and Republicans take the Senate and the White House, expect another Republican to replace Ginsburg. It should be the 5th vote to overturn Roe, and send the issue back to the states.

Could we pretty please, with sugar on top, focus on economic issues? While we're still a first-world nation?

I am focused on economic issues. I'm anybody but Obama. But I'm not voting pro-choice Republican in the primaries. No way, no how. We'll have a pro-life nominee. We always do. We will have a specific plank in the Republican platform to call for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. We always do.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, right, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif., left, listen as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., center, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill over the summer. (Credit: AP) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released the 2012 House calendar today, and lawmakers will be spending even less time in Washington next year than they did this year.There are just six scheduled working days in January. Three in August. And five in October. In all, the House of Representatives is scheduled to be in session 109 weekdays next year, and will be in recess 151 weekdays - meaning recess days will outstrip working days by nearly a 3 to 2 margin.

"Six days on the calendar in January? It really makes you wonder about the schedule," remarked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at her weekly press conference, adding that "particularly at this time when American people are feeling so much pain...at some point you have bring the message home and represent your people, find agreement, we can't do that if everyone is at home."

Republicans shot back that Democrats scheduled even fewer work days - 104 - in 2008.

As the party in power, Republicans control the calendar in the House of Representatives. When they took over, GOP leaders set a loose goal of two weeks on, one week off - giving members the chance to spend extended time back in their districts every third week. This calendar reflects that goal. In fact, there are only two weeks in all of 2012 where House members are slated to be in Washington all five weekdays. And there is no month in which they are scheduled to work more than 14 days."

Oh those hard working Republicans, and when they are actually in session they will churn out yet another attack on women's rights, to hell with the economy, go team Boehner!

Saint Croix, the majority on the court were appointed by pro-life presidents. They haven't struck down Roe. Kennedy switched sides at a critical moment. I don't think it happened because Kennedy wanted the NYT to think kindly of him.